Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1887-03-07
THAT PETITION BUSINESS.
The Provo Man Has Another say
About H.

of authority, and can only lawfully be
exercised within given limits. Let us
look for a moment at the status of the
case in which this power of indefinitely
suspending sentence was exercised.
The defendant was indicted for capt.
tai crime. His trial lasted about six
weeks. He was ably defended, and his
case was conducted by the prosecution in
spirit of fairness and candor unsur-
passed in any prosecution. verdict OF
manslaughter was finally rendered by
the jury. The entire proceeding is recog-
nized as strictly regular and legal. So
stated the Court, substantially, in his
suspension of sentence; and he paid a
compliment to the jury for returning so
Just a verdict-of which he approved.
| There is no pretence of any informality
GA illegality in the indictment, or in
sufficiency of evidence upon which to
found the verdict; or that there was any
irregularity in any other respect. 1t is
then a pure question of laW, whether or
not the Court had any authority in the
exercise of its judicial discretion, upon
which to base its action, either upon
principle, or under the authority of adju-
| dicated decisions. The question hereto
fore, asking the authority IN any case for
court to exercise the right of suspending
sentence, from want of care or through
inadvertence was stated too broadly. The
The question should be considered with
relation to the case in which such author
| ity was exercised-in case where the
defendant had been found guilty of
felony, and all the proceedings admitted
regular and legal, and no legal proceed
ing had been interposed, undisposed of,
to set aside the verdict.
The case referred to in your editorial
against Addy, 18th New Jersey, and
quoted as authority for the exercise of
| this power, has been considered. Addy
was not indicted for felony, but only for
a nuisance; his sentence was indefinitely
suspended on payment of costs, so long as
he did and maintained certain things ''to
''abate the nuisance" Defendant paid
the costs, abated the nuisance and was
discharged. He failed to keep it abated
and was subsequently sentenced to i'm
prisonr1ent for this failure to comply
with the order of the court. He applied
by petition in habeas corpus to the Su-
preme Court for his release and was dis
| charged from custody because in sub
stance, the court could exercise no fur
| Their authority oyer the defendent, the
| judgment of suspension indefinitely. and
contingent upon his performing certain
| things being held to be final. Suppose
the defendant, here, fail to conform to the
order of the court, and the judge at
| tempts to bring him before the court and
| sentence him upon the verdict? Could
he do it, under the decision? or is not
indiinite suspension final? In the other
case referred to, in does not appear
whether it was on charge OF felony, or a
less grade of otense; nor has anything
been noticed from which one could
assume that it had any application in
the present case. In Massachusetts it is
understood that the courts have stet
docket in which cases are passed where
there is some legal proceeding depend
ing, and not ready for adjudication
they are placed upon the docket to save
the regular dOcketing and continuance
at exact term and keep the cause from
lapsing. This is what l infer is Justice
Gray's meaning by suspension. These
two cases are quoted, and referred to in
case of the People VS.. Mueller, in the
Criminal Law magazine published at
Jersey City vol. +; p, 725-740, a leading
case in which the authorities relating to
the power OF courts to suspend sentence
are considered; and, l doubt not-from
some expressions used by you, but the
same has come under your observation. !
If the "books are full of authorities" !
upon this question, have entirely failed |
to discover that harmonious concurrence |
in the support of the power of suspension |
In cases like the one being considered. |
In the case V. Mueller, referred to, side |
by side with the "Addy" case, appears
an authority from which l quote Gin |
the People VS.. Morrisette, Goth Howard; |
N. Y, Pr-Rep. 11S, the Court holds
that there is now power to suspend |
sentence indefinitely, and places it on
the ground that it is a quasi pardon. The
Court says: "That suspending sentence
after conviction or plea of guilty appears
to be frequent practice in many Grim
inal courts, but that such practice is
wholly unauthorized
l may add that, of all the cases cited
therein, including those cited by.you, I
fail to find any authority sustaining sus-
pension of sentence in cases like the one
under consideration. The case of the
People VS.. Mueller, referred to in the
magazine, is not analogous. There SEN
tence was suspended, not indefinitely,
but absolutely, on entirely different
grounds; and clearly authorized as
within the legal discretion of the Court.
The defendant was indicted for murder.
He was a Polander, and did not under
stand the English language. He was
advised by his counsel, who, it appears,
did not understand his case, to plead.
and his counsel did, in his behalf, inter
pose plea of guilty of murder in the sec
ond degree. The Court examined wit
nesses to ascertain the measure of penal
ty to be melted out to him, and then dis
covered that he was legally innocent, the
alleged killing being clearly and unmis-
takeably in self-defense. Here the Court
non obstarrte the plea of guilty, arrested
Judgment and discharged the defendant.
And this was strictly within his judicial
discretion. The Court in this case said
Very little argument or authority should |
be required to maintain that the power
OF a court is adequate, in proper case,
to discharge defendant by suspending
his sentence as by directing a verdict of
acquittall. The two courses are equiva-
lent. The end is the same"
1t seems then, that, if court
could not lawfully direct verdict of for
acquittal it could not lawfully suspend
the sentence.
In the same case the learned Judge
quotes from Sir Matthew Hale I'D o. c.
500. what if jury give verdict
against all reason, convicting a person
against evidence and against
the direction or opinion of the Court. The =
Court has this salvo-to reprieye the
person before convicted before iudg-
ment;" and adds, ''to acqUlin the